Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Christology Rests Upon a Mistake

Posted on: June 10, 2011 - 10:10pm

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

Christology Rests Upon a Mistake

Christology rests upon a mistake. This is a simple statement that could be easily understood by much of the various Christian denominations. As so it means the invalidity of the Christian Faith since it rests upon its own Christology.

Christology or how and why Jesus saves is based upon the idea that the Genesis account of Creation is real. However, much of Christendom apart from conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists knows how the universe began and that evolution is factual. They also affirm that the Genesis account of the Creation and Adam and Eve are mythological. It is unlikely for example that plants were created a day before the sun, moon and stars as in presented in Genesis. Also there is plenty of fossil and genetic evidence that humankind has been about hundreds of thousands of years.

Since the Creation and the Fall are mythological and not literal accounts there is no basis to assume there is original sin. Christology is based upon original sin. The death of Jesus upon the cross is a sacrifice (propitiation) for that sin. Paul argues it, “As in Adam all have sinned and died so in Christ all are made alive.” Since there was no Adam, Eve, Eden, or Fall then there is no basis for a need of salvation. Jesus did not die for your sins. He died because of his teachings.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Yeah, a religion (read: Christianity) teacher of mine said that too. He phrased it differently, though: "I'm not sure whether or not I believe Evolution. On the one hand, there's millions of piece of evidence from the scientific community. But on the other hand, if evolution is true, the Fall could never have happened, and our religion is meaningless. So I can't believe it".

Therefore, I would advise people to first prove evolution, and then show the incompatibility. Otherwise people will never accept evolution, because of the consequences.

"Christology or how and why Jesus saves is based upon the idea that the Genesis account of Creation is real. However, much of Christendom apart from conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists knows how the universe began and that evolution is factual. They also affirm that the Genesis account of the Creation and Adam and Eve are mythological. It is unlikely for example that plants were created a day before the sun, moon and stars as in presented in Genesis. Also there is plenty of fossil and genetic evidence that humankind has been about hundreds of thousands of years."

The truth of the Gospel doesn't rest on a literal reading of Genisis based on current science knowledge (which is horrendously incomplete) or even the 'inerrancy' of the Bible of every crossed T or dotted I....it rests on one thing.....the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. As Paul wrote if Christ is not risen then 'all our hope is in vain'. He never mentioned if the world is not really 6,000 years old, THEN our hope is in vain. The 6,000 year bit is mainly the work of Ussher anyway and not very old. It assumes MUCH that the Bible never states.

As David Berlinski wrote in "The Devi's Delusion" at various times in history people wrote of the natural world 'what they could see'. They saw what they could see as best they could. If they thought the sun revolved around the earth it was because it appeared that way. What corrected that of course was better instrumentation and math.

If we shouldn't apply the Bible to science as a test of science.....should we apply science to the Bible as a test of the Bible? Though the Bible does present some starling claims....even though it is certainly NOT a science document.

"These assertions imply that the Book of Nature is inerrant, so that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a staple of Christian thought, has not at all been discarded in Galileo's mind, but transferred. A new, greater, grander book now occupies his attention, but even though new, greater, and grander, the Book of Nature-the Book-is nonetheless very much like the old book. It is inerrant.

The "book of God's word" and the "the book of God's works," Francis Bacon argued, are not in conflict.

"Christology or how and why Jesus saves is based upon the idea that the Genesis account of Creation is real. However, much of Christendom apart from conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists knows how the universe began and that evolution is factual. They also affirm that the Genesis account of the Creation and Adam and Eve are mythological. It is unlikely for example that plants were created a day before the sun, moon and stars as in presented in Genesis. Also there is plenty of fossil and genetic evidence that humankind has been about hundreds of thousands of years."

The truth of the Gospel doesn't rest on a literal reading of Genisis based on current science knowledge (which is horrendously incomplete) or even the 'inerrancy' of the Bible of every crossed T or dotted I....it rests on one thing.....the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. As Paul wrote if Christ is not risen then 'all our hope is in vain'. He never mentioned if the world is not really 6,000 years old, THEN our hope is in vain. The 6,000 year bit is mainly the work of Ussher anyway and not very old. It assumes MUCH that the Bible never states.

As David Berlinski wrote in "The Devi's Delusion" at various times in history people wrote of the natural world 'what they could see'. They saw what they could see as best they could. If they thought the sun revolved around the earth it was because it appeared that way. What corrected that of course was better instrumentation and math.

If we shouldn't apply the Bible to science as a test of science.....should we apply science to the Bible as a test of the Bible? Though the Bible does present some starling claims....even though it is certainly NOT a science document.

"These assertions imply that the Book of Nature is inerrant, so that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a staple of Christian thought, has not at all been discarded in Galileo's mind, but transferred. A new, greater, grander book now occupies his attention, but even though new, greater, and grander, the Book of Nature-the Book-is nonetheless very much like the old book. It is inerrant.

The "book of God's word" and the "the book of God's works," Francis Bacon argued, are not in conflict.

How could they be?

They are the same book.

David Berlinski-The Devil's Delusion page 213-214

Berlinski was right....it is a 'big tent'.

Oh don't be silly. It is quite simple. No fall. No need for sacrifice of the crucifixion. No need for a resurrection to vouch safe it or put a seal of approval on it. If the truth of the Gospel does not rest on a literal meaning of Genesis perhaps it does not rest on a literal meaning of the Resurrection of Jesus.... It is simply more of a trend called Sophisticated Theology which is simply a revision of Christianity every time a truth falls from the factual tree of knowledge and lands in the metaphorical ocean of delusion.

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles. He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born. Paul cast him in an ahistorical Hellenistic Savior myth. Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expected his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.

The Jerusalem Church developed into the Ebionites and continued to wait for Jesus to return in "their lifetime" with the resurrection of all the saints. They did not believe in the virgin birth and saw Jesus as a mortal. The Ebionite movement was wiped out pretty much in the second revolt under Simon ben Kokba. Neo-platonic thought moved another aspect of Jewish thought with the help of the Johannine literature toward Gnosticism and Mystery Cultism( Paul). Logos Christology became predominate in the second century while Paul's writings became old hat. Marcion rejected the Jewish background of god and created the first Christian bible. Other groups of churches reacted against Marcion and Paul's writings came back into popularity as well as the pseudepigraphical ones attributed to Paul and Peter/Jude and John. Various forms of Christianity competed with each other creating more and more writings attributed to the Apostles. The gospels were attributed to Matthew , Mark, Luke and John. Jesus became more and more divine and everybody got together and created a bunch of trinity theories. The politicians won.

Historical researchers in this field generally see Jesus as a wandering Cynic teacher spouting out words of wisdom and folk philosophy. It does seem to be the core of what developed into Christianity and the hypothetical document Q. Jesus was a human who came from Galilee. Galilee was the only area in Palestine that was forcefully converted to Judaism. Even so only 50% of the population was Jewish. Rabbi Hannina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer were very similar characters to Jesus. Simon ben Dosa called god Abba like Jesus meaning Daddy instead of a reverential “father”. He spoke openly with women as Jesus did.

The reason that historians posit these as historical is because they are contrary to the believing Jewish or Christian movement. You can see evidence that the church tried to cover up the fact that Jesus was baptized as others to get rid of sin. Historical Jesus research is a discipline to explain the sociological development of what became Christianity ... what historical kernel was the catalyst for all the mythic construction. It is commonly understood that the bible is mythic in seminaries and theological schools like Princeton, Yale, Emory, Vanderbilt. The bridge from Theological school and seminary to the church and its members is “teach it as truth and avoid the lack of factual basis.” So statements are demythologized and taken into a philosophical meaning rather than a grounded factual historical meaning. Virgin birth does not really mean a women had a child and was a virgin. It becomes a story to honor Jesus as both god and man. So you have pure historical work. Then the theologians that try to make it still meaningful and then the preachers to present it as literal. When I was in seminary my mentor (Hendrikus Boers) who wrote, “Who Was Jesus?” was a Marxist atheist from South Africa. He would point to people like Jurgen Moltmann (theologian) as a fraud that needed to be exposed. Then there is the whole moderate movement that tries to salvage some Christianity out of the historical/critical conclusions. Crossan was on the Jesus Seminar team. He knows Jesus was simply a person who got into trouble and was removed from being an irritation. The people who cared about where Jesus was buried did not know where he was buried. The people who did know where he was buried (communal grave) did not care.

Sophisticated Theology affirms the historical conclusions of historical/critical research as well as science but as with the trend since the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann wish to convert the theological and ethical meaning of the unhistorical scripture into eternal absolutes and continued truths for the church. The stories become no more than hyper-fables. And some of their truths are dangerous to our culture.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

"What percentage of this democide was due to religious conflict? It turns out that religious democide doesn't even make the top 20 (although I am sure there is some in the "lesser murderers" category. Still, the total religious killings is less than 2%. In fact, the top two killers were specifically atheistic states (which had never existed before in human history). Should atheism be blamed for more than 50% of the atrocities committed during the 20th century? The answer of course is No! If one examines the nature of the regimes that committed these atrocities (even the religious ones), the key factor is absolute power (see Figure 1, right). According to Professor R.J. Rummel, in the 1816-2005 period there were 205 wars between non-democracies, 166 wars between non-democracies and democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. Lord Acton's warning that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to be more than just a trite saying."

"What people call impartiality may simply mean indifference, and what people call partiality may simply mean mental activity."

"What percentage of this democide was due to religious conflict? It turns out that religious democide doesn't even make the top 20 (although I am sure there is some in the "lesser murderers" category. Still, the total religious killings is less than 2%. In fact, the top two killers were specifically atheistic states (which had never existed before in human history). Should atheism be blamed for more than 50% of the atrocities committed during the 20th century? The answer of course is No! If one examines the nature of the regimes that committed these atrocities (even the religious ones), the key factor is absolute power (see Figure 1, right). According to Professor R.J. Rummel, in the 1816-2005 period there were 205 wars between non-democracies, 166 wars between non-democracies and democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. Lord Acton's warning that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to be more than just a trite saying."

"What people call impartiality may simply mean indifference, and what people call partiality may simply mean mental activity."

GK Chesterton

"The simplification of anything is always sensational."

GK Chesterton

Nor did you.... You wanna quote Paul then his Christology is based on the actuality of the Genesis account of the fall. I Cor 15:11 In Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive. He repeats this in many of his Epistles.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

"Oh don't be silly. It is quite simple. No fall. No need for sacrifice of the crucifixion. No need for a resurrection to vouch safe it or put a seal of approval on it. If the truth of the Gospel does not rest on a literal meaning of Genesis perhaps it does not rest on a literal meaning of the Resurrection of Jesus.... It is simply more of a trend called Sophisticated Theology which is simply a revision of Christianity every time a truth falls from the factual tree of knowledge and lands in the metaphorical ocean of delusion."

Well one difference to point out is no human was there at the beginning.........there were people there at the tomb. Which makes the choice of female witnesses an odd choice to "make up a story" considered the status of female witnesses at the time in the Middle East among several other things. Over the centuries various ideas have been proposed of how to interpret Genesis. It's been far from one way (which you are trying to impose yours). There is no 'sophisticated theology' here, and this is nothing new.

It's seems Christians only believe what they are told on the one hand per some athiests.....but then when they analyze why they believe what they believe.....well heck they are just making wiggle room to justify their belief in Jesus as their savior. You either believe in Jesus resurrection or you don't....it's your choice.

In fact without Jesus (or Judaism before him) it's hard to imagine Western society every quite happening. Obviously you don't believe Jesus was a 'myth' and was a real person.

Up till recently Jews or half/Jews had won 31% of Nobel prizes in the 21st century. Jews are about .2% of the world's population. How does that happen? The Bible predicts they will be a blessing to all mankind, but also be persecuted. Of course the racist answer is it's the great Jewish cabal! LOL Of course the Christian answer is the ultimate gift of all was Jesus.

I have worked among scientists almost my whole adult life....peer reviewed doing primary science research about human diseases. I have seen the 'grunt work' of science. I have a deep respect for science, but I also realize it's shortcomings. Then there's personal ambition, politics, getting funding, media spin, etc. etc. etc. I find Darwinism incredibly unconvincing, safe to say the 'warm little pond' and the 'cell is a mud hut' are long gone. When people say we known how the universe was formed from science....that's a statement of fancy and wish.

When you look at what we know and don't about the origins of the universe and life on this planet, the social, the moral, the asthetic, how the mind/brain really work....well another Berlinski quote:

Having the universe we have and it arising from the 'seething particles' on it's own is like imagining 'sea foam resolving into the Parthenon'.

When you analyze the original Hebrew words.....not just a 21st century American reading 17th century English, the picture can become somewhat different. It's not science, but then it's profounding interesting. It was never supposed to be science either, because it was written LONG before even the invention of the scientific method. It's like complaining that a Model T didn't come with a modern engine with FI from the factory.

"Oh don't be silly. It is quite simple. No fall. No need for sacrifice of the crucifixion. No need for a resurrection to vouch safe it or put a seal of approval on it. If the truth of the Gospel does not rest on a literal meaning of Genesis perhaps it does not rest on a literal meaning of the Resurrection of Jesus.... It is simply more of a trend called Sophisticated Theology which is simply a revision of Christianity every time a truth falls from the factual tree of knowledge and lands in the metaphorical ocean of delusion."

Well one difference to point out is no human was there at the beginning.........there were people there at the tomb. Which makes the choice of female witnesses an odd choice to "make up a story" considered the status of female witnesses at the time in the Middle East among several other things. Over the centuries various ideas have been proposed of how to interpret Genesis. It's been far from one way (which you are trying to impose yours). There is no 'sophisticated theology' here, and this is nothing new.

It's seems Christians only believe what they are told on the one hand per some athiests.....but then when they analyze why they believe what they believe.....well heck they are just making wiggle room to justify their belief in Jesus as their savior. You either believe in Jesus resurrection or you don't....it's your choice.

In fact without Jesus (or Judaism before him) it's hard to imagine Western society every quite happening. Obviously you don't believe Jesus was a 'myth' and was a real person.

Up till recently Jews or half/Jews had won 31% of Nobel prizes in the 21st century. Jews are about .2% of the world's population. How does that happen? The Bible predicts they will be a blessing to all mankind, but also be persecuted. Of course the racist answer is it's the great Jewish cabal! LOL Of course the Christian answer is the ultimate gift of all was Jesus.

I have worked among scientists almost my whole adult life....peer reviewed doing primary science research about human diseases. I have seen the 'grunt work' of science. I have a deep respect for science, but I also realize it's shortcomings. Then there's personal ambition, politics, getting funding, media spin, etc. etc. etc. I find Darwinism incredibly unconvincing, safe to say the 'warm little pond' and the 'cell is a mud hut' are long gone. When people say we known how the universe was formed from science....that's a statement of fancy and wish.

When you look at what we know and don't about the origins of the universe and life on this planet, the social, the moral, the asthetic, how the mind/brain really work....well another Berlinski quote:

Having the universe we have and it arising from the 'seething particles' on it's own is like imagining 'sea foam resolving into the Parthenon'.

When you analyze the original Hebrew words.....not just a 21st century American reading 17th century English, the picture can become somewhat different. It's not science, but then it's profounding interesting. It was never supposed to be science either, because it was written LONG before even the invention of the scientific method. It's like complaining that a Model T didn't come with a modern engine with FI from the factory.

"Religion" is not the great evil in the world. The 20th century was the least religious in history and far and away the most bloodiest....so much for human improvement by fixing ourselves.

"not fallen"?......we won't ever likely agree on this one but yes looking at human nature I would say we are most definitely FALLEN. Of course we will disagree on that an neither persuade the other.

"The whole order of things is as outrageous as any miracle which could presume to violate it."

GK Chesterton

We have no reason to believe the scriptures of the gospels are any more literal than Genesis (as you pointed out is admitted to be the case by moderate and liberal Chirsitians). In fact we have reasons to believe that the empty tomb is simply another later written story without any historical basis. The choice of female witnesses is not a odd thing as apologists wish to contend. Many Christian writings were attributed to women and not mean in the second century. Women held apostleship, deaconship when you lok at the earlist texts before they were altered by later orthodoxy.

It is interesting that it has been Christianity that has persecuted the Jews throughout most history contrary to the sentiment you display. If one seriously studies the textual variations of the scripture, the historical development and comparison of the development of the text then one can see that Christianity is simply a process that revisions itself to accomodate the cultural environment ( including de-historicizing Genesis or the Resurrection as many i theologians have done and do to maintain a religion). I can tell you this with a degree in Biblical studies and 40 years of research we do know a lot about the origins of Judaism and Christianity.

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized and Jesus tells him to go on with it to fulfill all righteousness.

This answers the problem of why a sinless person would need baptism as in Mark and also makes John subservient to Jesus. This makes obvious the church is dealing with the fact that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and does not begin his ministry until John is arrested. The author of the Gospel of John will have Jesus baptizing and ministering at the same time as the Baptist and does not have Jesus baptized by John.

In Mark Jesus comes up out of the water and the Holy Spirit comes into ( again eis) him. Matthew changes this to the spirit descends upon ( epi) him. The idea of the spirit after baptism coming into a person is consistent with the idea in Acts 2:38: Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Mark Jesus alone hears god saying that he is well pleased. In Matthew god addresses his pleasure to the crowds. Luke maintains Mark's terminology about baptism, changes the adoptionistic reception of the Spirit into Jesus to a confirmation like Matthew to the spirit as dove comes down upon (epi) him. The change of the preposition by Matthew and Luke are intentional because of the theological implications and the addition of the infancy narratives wherein Jesus has the spirit from birth! Luke quotes mark and maintains gods announcement of pleasure to Jesus.

When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor. Instead of "Behold I send my messenger before your face the original in Malachi 3:1 reads "I will send my messenger before me ( i.e.; God)." The change is from god talking to his prophet about his own coming to god talking to Christ about sending the Baptist before him. The messenger in Malachi was originally the Messiah and not the Baptist. The change is from god to messiah or Jesus in doing so and an example of a forged prophecy. Thus the preparing of the way of the Lord (Yahweh) shifts to a Messianic interpretation and the make straight his paths is substituted for the paths of our God.

This type of process continues throughout the gospel accounts so that jesus originally a human is portrayed as divine.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

The Bible is certainly not a book of science - it doesn't even get to the status of a book of less formal accounts of knowledge and understanding.

Science is imperfect, but has established a vast number of things about the Universe, Life, and the nature of our own minds with a high degree of confidence, and continues to progress..

Whereas non-empirical thinking, intuition, brings up ideas based purely on instinct and desires and wishes, is what has been shown repeatedly, to be mostly 'horrendously wrong' about the facts of existence. Science uses such thinking, but only to generate hypotheses, often wild ideas that occasionally suggest possible insights that can be tested objectively to see if they have merit.

Without science you have guesswork, speculation.

It is a set of unverified claims, naked assertions, what the writers believed based on what they thought or felt 'must' be true, and testimony, often passed on from mouth to ear many times, and/or translated more than once.

So, a very unreliable basis for any firm beliefs in the nature of our existence and what it signifies.

If you are going to base your belief on 'the resurrection of Jesus', you are building your life not on sand, but soft mud.

Even if true, it logically proves nothing beyond someone having unusual powers. It proves nothing of ultimate motives or purpose, of either Jesus or his purported 'Father'. It was a stunt - since he wasn't going to stay dead. It was a scam.

This image's meaning, is like me, often unclear. Depends on who it is directed towards. Funny, Many who question or who reject have often times problems in following Paul's ideas. Words like "propitiation" are not commonly run across, unless you live in the bible belt :

I'd just like to point out that proving that the Genesis account is "mythological" i.e. not scientifically sound missed one very important thing: The Genesis account is not trying to be scientifically sound. It's trying to be symbolic. Just because something written two thousand years ago does not hold up to modern science on a factual level does not mean it cannot be true on a metaphorical level. The fact that the world was not created in seven days and the fact that humanity did not begin from just two people does not invalidate the possibility that humanity was intended by God to be peaceful, good, virtuous etc. and we messed up.

Now, I'm not a theologist nor have I done extensive reading or research on the nuances of my own theism or of atheism, so I'm not going to stick around and argue with y'all whether or not there was, in fact, a Fall, but I wish you all happiness and admonish the use of courtasy by both sides in the continued debate.

So Genesis was not intended to be factual? How do you decide which passages are meant to be read purely symbolically and which are supposed to be describing actual events?

Talking about the accounts not meant to be 'science' is irrelevant, we are simply pointing out where they describe things which totally conflict with what we now know with a high degree of confidence was the actual state of the world at those times, or what the actual origin of earth and life actually was. Many people thru history, and still today, did/do believe that Genesis is actual history, which is nonsense.

Of course, even symbolically, much or most of the 'message' of Genesis is highly offensive and immoral, endorsing the idea that disobedience to an authority figure is intrinsically wrong, and that visiting punishment on the descendents of someone who offends that authority figure is justified.

Maybe it's because of me, but I don't (almost) understand how one could base his life, expecially today, on a lack of knowledge like bible's one. Life is not made of catchy phrases or proverbs, you need a deep theory on how things, and human behavior, works.
To organize millions or billions of people you need something very precise, not a book that changes interpretation in every village. Experience taught nothing to those people. Blind like only saramago could describe.

Jesus is 99% Arab MYTH and that is proven to be true with each passing minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc.

ChristNUTS have been 100% wrong in all their supernatural claims and all predictions about Jesus "coming back".

There is NO historical Jesus. Everything that has been cited to corroborate the existence of Jesus has been done by people who lived DECADES later but never actualy saw any Jesus and weren't even a contemporary of Jesus!

Josephus is one of those people who never saw any Jesus and was actually born after Jesus allegedly died. That's a laughable reference anyway since he also mentions Hercules. So now Christians believe in Hercules too right?

Jesus is 99% Arab MYTH and that is proven to be true with each passing minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc.

ChristNUTS have been 100% wrong in all their supernatural claims and all predictions about Jesus "coming back".

There is NO historical Jesus. Everything that has been cited to corroborate the existence of Jesus has been done by people who lived DECADES later but never actualy saw any Jesus and weren't even a contemporary of Jesus!

Josephus is one of those people who never saw any Jesus and was actually born after Jesus allegedly died. That's a laughable reference anyway since he also mentions Hercules. So now Christians believe in Hercules too right?

The problem with that view is it is real easy to find the original folowers of a historical Jesus called the Ebionites. They were Jewish Jesus Movement folk who continued with the Temple Cultus in Jerssalem and were headed by james, Jesus' borther. They did not believe in a virgin birth. Jesus was not divine much less a god. He was thought to be a great techer who did not sin and was killed in opposition to the poers that be that corrputed the Temple. They though Jesu would come back s Messiah of the Kingodm and general resurrection. They were called the Ebionites. They seem to be the people in Galatains that fight against Paul who wants to make Jesus a Greek type god.THis shows that there was a quite human Jew who was slowly made into a god as his legend traveled into the Hellenistic world.

Galatians 2

1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, b

Galatians 2

King James Version (KJV)

But by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

That sin warrants death is in conflict with the post resurrection idea .. The assumption that the crucifixion is a propitiation is dependent on the myth of the fall. . . . Was there death and suffering prior to man? And that is in conflict with Christology which states that death entered through man and is the result of sin. Secondly that there was suffering and pain before the alleged Fall means that god is responsible for that suffering and pain and therefore not all powerful to prevent it or all good in that he did not care. We do not have to speculate as you state as to whether animal suffering was result of the fall. It was BEFORE the fall as you stated. We do not have to speculate as you claim. We have plenty of fossils and records of millions of years of life and death prior to Adam and Eve and that is in conflict with the whole fall scenario

Let's cut to the chase. Sorry wanted to include this WITHOUT you having to repeat yourself.

This image's meaning, is like me, often unclear. Depends on who it is directed towards. Funny, Many who question or who reject have often times problems in following Paul's ideas. Words like "propitiation" are not commonly run across, unless you live in the bible belt :

Propitiation is a primitive concept of replacing one wrong with another. If someone killed someone in your village and he was from another village. The idea was to get the village to let you kill him or substitute someone lsle in that village. After a while eye for an eye (lex talionis) became monetary. Jesus wa a one time sacrifice instead of an animal that harks back to human sacrifice prior to the animals.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

That sin warrants death is in conflict with the post resurrection idea .. The assumption that the crucifixion is a propitiation is dependent on the myth of the fall. . . . Was there death and suffering prior to man? And that is in conflict with Christology which states that death entered through man and is the result of sin. Secondly that there was suffering and pain before the alleged Fall means that god is responsible for that suffering and pain and therefore not all powerful to prevent it or all good in that he did not care. We do not have to speculate as you state as to whether animal suffering was result of the fall. It was BEFORE the fall as you stated. We do not have to speculate as you claim. We have plenty of fossils and records of millions of years of life and death prior to Adam and Eve and that is in conflict with the whole fall scenario

Let's cut to the chase. Sorry wanted to include this WITHOUT you having to repeat yourself.

What are we chasing?

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Jesus is 99% Arab MYTH and that is proven to be true with each passing minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc.

ChristNUTS have been 100% wrong in all their supernatural claims and all predictions about Jesus "coming back".

There is NO historical Jesus. Everything that has been cited to corroborate the existence of Jesus has been done by people who lived DECADES later but never actualy saw any Jesus and weren't even a contemporary of Jesus!

Josephus is one of those people who never saw any Jesus and was actually born after Jesus allegedly died. That's a laughable reference anyway since he also mentions Hercules. So now Christians believe in Hercules too right?

The problem with that view is it is real easy to find the original folowers of a historical Jesus called the Ebionites. They were Jewish Jesus Movement folk who continued with the Temple Cultus in Jerssalem and were headed by james, Jesus' borther. They did not believe in a virgin birth. Jesus was not divine much less a god. He was thought to be a great techer who did not sin and was killed in opposition to the poers that be that corrputed the Temple. They though Jesu would come back s Messiah of the Kingodm and general resurrection. They were called the Ebionites. They seem to be the people in Galatains that fight against Paul who wants to make Jesus a Greek type god.THis shows that there was a quite human Jew who was slowly made into a god as his legend traveled into the Hellenistic world.

Galatians 2

1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, b

Galatians 2

King James Version (KJV)

But by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

COME ON dude!! You MUST be kidding!

You realize that's a quote from THEOLOGY? That means NOTHING!! That's like taking a quote from the Illiad or the Odyssey and saying the Greek Gods are real.

You can do the exact same thing with the Bhagvad Gita and say Krishna, Rama, Arjuna, Hanuman, etc. were all real because in the scripture there are TONS of eyewitnesses to them! You can verify even more gods and supernatural events by looking at the Mahabharta, Ramayana, Upanishads, etc. I have even spoken to clery on that and they admit they can't show the bible has any more truth than any other scripture!!

If you have studied history there are no eyewitness accounts or contemporary accounts of any Jesus! Even history professors have admitted this to me! The Ebonites onlly spoke of a STORY of god and they never gave an ounce of evidence that Jesus ever existed!

I can't believe you fell for the infantile ChristNUT deception!! Don't fall for the Jesus TROLL!!

Even pro Christian Wikipedia admits the Ebionites are NOT reliable:

Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed hereticalJudaizers.[5][6] Consequently very little about the Ebionite sect or sects is known with certainty, and most, if not all, statements about them are conjectural.

Ithink you need to distinguish a historical study of a theological work from the assumption that its theology is valid. It was written at some time. We can distinquish between authentic writings of Paul and the ones that were forged in his name. I suggest that you read some Bart Ehrman. It is hardly a theological claim. It is either true or false. It has to do with a historical claim. As to the Ebionites it does not matter about the accuracy of the history but the fact that there is a blievf consistent with historical construction that would make less plausible a mythic view. That is say it is not plausible that a myth would have been downgraded precisely into what one expect of the human reconstruction.

I would point out there was not a shred of evidence for the Old Testament in Hebrew prior to 1000 CE until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would look at the Illiad and Oddesy and see when the earliest evidence for composition is. We did not doubt the existence of the Essenes before the Discovery of the Scrolls as well. Yet all we had were Josephus' comments and Plinys'. The claim we have no evidence 0f 4 -100 CE is simply an unwarranted rejection of a multitude of data including the writings of the New Testament themselves.

When someone like Ehrman, Loftus or myself point to a historical Jesus we do so from the normal historical methodology. Secondly the stufy of such early texts going back to the second century point to evidence of the first century. The idea that so many second century writers would have jointly fabricated a person yet disagree so vehemently about his nature does not show a uniformity of fabrication rather later fabrication of interpretation.

The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman EmpireAccording to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.

Scholars like E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan have variously argued that the gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the crucifixion of Jesus, are generally deemed to be historically authentic, while the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection, are generally deemed to be inauthentic Charles Guignebert(1867–1939), Professor of the History of Christianity at the Sorbonne, maintained that the "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed".

The language of the gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls show ist century commonalities.

Tactitus writes in 64 CE

c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Pliny 112 CEThose who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Suetonius 69-140"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".

Mara bar Sarapion

Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted

Composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century, some scholars believe this describes the fall of Jerusalem as the gods' punishment for the Jews having killed Jesus because they infer that Jesus must be "the wise king" referred to by Mara.

All of this points to a fisrt century development of a movement. I've been at it with Murdocks moderator on Sam Harris's board who wants to say there is nothing prior to 150 CE for the mythicist position. This is simply not tenable.

The comparison of the Pauline writings show real writings verses false writings themselves. We see the authentic writings to be mid first century and the pastorals as forged with a second century vocabulary.

I would repeat this:

Here's my reasoning. If we take two early movements the Ebionites and Paul you have on the one hand a presentation that jesus was Jewish. He was a human being. He was not virgin born. He taught wisdom and lived a pure life. He got killed but was believed to be appointed as God's son ( Messiah) and so was raised by God. He would return with the general resurrection of the dead and establish the eternal kingdom since the end of the world is at hand. Until then you keep the Jewish law. This is apparently what a group in Jerusalem believed that Paul fought against and claimed was lead by James the brother of Jesus.

On the other hand you have Paul's pre-existent divine Son of God who died as a propitiation for sin. He has many similar attributes to the other Hellenistic Mystery Cult gods and in fact seems to be a demigod. He appears as a spirit. One must remember that the writings of the New Testament are written by different people and more importantly different Christianites. When looking at other writings that did not make it into the Bible, the Nag Hammadhi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a competition of beliefs.

Now given plausibility which is likely to have evolved from which? Is it likely that a myth would have reduced a godlike figure to a Jewish teacher? Or is it likely that there was a Jewish teacher who had followers still in Jerusalem that came to be known as the Ebionites and continued to be Jewish whose teachings became incorporated as they left the confines of Judaism into more exotic forms. And Paul having seen both and having a Greek Philosophical background merged the Mystery cult language onto the Jewish sect of Jesus' followers creating a new Gentile religion. When we do historical analysis we look at these factors as well as what words likely went back to such a situation. We can construct a Jewish teacher to some detail.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

I think you need to distinguish a historical study of a theological work from the assumption that its theology is valid. It was written at some time. We can distinquish between authentic writings of Paul and the ones that were forged in his name. I suggest that you read some Bart Ehrman. It is hardly a theological claim. It is either true or false. It has to do with a historical claim. As to the Ebionites it does not matter about the accuracy of the history but the fact that there is a blievf consistent with historical construction that would make less plausible a mythic view. That is say it is not plausible that a myth would have been downgraded precisely into what one expect of the human reconstruction. Secondly I have thirty years of research on the period of time including the Jesus movement, the Second Temple period and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would point out there was not a shred of evidence for the Old Testament in Hebrew prior to 1000 CE until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would look at the Illiad and Oddesy and see when the earliest evidence for composition is. We did not doubt the existence of the Essenes before the Discovery of the Scrolls as well. Yet all we had were Josephus' comments and Plinys'. The claim we have no evidence 0f 4 -100 CE is simply an unwarranted rejection of a multitude of data including the writings of the New Testament themselves.

When someone like Ehrman, Loftus or myself point to a historical Jesus we do so from the normal historical methodology. Secondly the stufy of such early texts going back to the second century point to evidence of the first century. The idea that so many second century writers would have jointly fabricated a person yet disagree so vehemently about his nature does not show a uniformity of fabrication rather later fabrication of interpretation.

The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman EmpireAccording to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.

Scholars like E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan have variously argued that the gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the crucifixion of Jesus, are generally deemed to be historically authentic, while the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection, are generally deemed to be inauthentic Charles Guignebert(1867–1939), Professor of the History of Christianity at the Sorbonne, maintained that the "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed".

The language of the gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls show ist century commonalities.

Tactitus writes in 64 CE

c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Pliny 112 CEThose who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Suetonius 69-140"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".

Mara bar Sarapion

Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted

Composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century, some scholars believe this describes the fall of Jerusalem as the gods' punishment for the Jews having killed Jesus because they infer that Jesus must be "the wise king" referred to by Mara.

All of this points to a fisrt century development of a movement. I've been at it with Murdocks moderator on Sam Harris's board who wants to say there is nothing prior to 150 CE for the mythicist position. This is simply not tenable.

The comparison of the Pauline writings show real writings verses false writings themselves. We see the authentic writings to be mid first century and the pastorals as forged with a second century vocabulary.

I would repeat this:

Here's my reasoning. If we take two early movements the Ebionites and Paul you have on the one hand a presentation that jesus was Jewish. He was a human being. He was not virgin born. He taught wisdom and lived a pure life. He got killed but was believed to be appointed as God's son ( Messiah) and so was raised by God. He would return with the general resurrection of the dead and establish the eternal kingdom since the end of the world is at hand. Until then you keep the Jewish law. This is apparently what a group in Jerusalem believed that Paul fought against and claimed was lead by James the brother of Jesus.

On the other hand you have Paul's pre-existent divine Son of God who died as a propitiation for sin. He has many similar attributes to the other Hellenistic Mystery Cult gods and in fact seems to be a demigod. He appears as a spirit. One must remember that the writings of the New Testament are written by different people and more importantly different Christianites. When looking at other writings that did not make it into the Bible, the Nag Hammadhi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a competition of beliefs.

Now given plausibility which is likely to have evolved from which? Is it likely that a myth would have reduced a godlike figure to a Jewish teacher? Or is it likely that there was a Jewish teacher who had followers still in Jerusalem that came to be known as the Ebionites and continued to be Jewish whose teachings became incorporated as they left the confines of Judaism into more exotic forms. And Paul having seen both and having a Greek Philosophical background merged the Mystery cult language onto the Jewish sect of Jesus' followers creating a new Gentile religion. When we do historical analysis we look at these factors as well as what words likely went back to such a situation. We can construct a Jewish teacher to some detail.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

TGBaker, you're making a classic mistake of mistaking THEOLOGY for history. Not a single thing you've stated is historical. You just keep repeating theology and the STORY of the a god Jesus that was told DECADES and CENTURIES later. You even mention 2nd century historians and you forget than they have ZERO historical evidence that their stories of Jesus are anything but mythology!

You mention Paul. Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Many problems occur with the reliability of the accounts from ancient historians. Most of them did not provide sources for their claims, as they rarely included bibliographic listings, or supporting claims. They did not have access to modern scholarly techniques, and many times would include hearsay as evidence. No one today would take a modern scholar seriously who used the standards of ancient historians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that Christology comes from. Couple this with the fact that many historians believed as Christians themselves, sometimes members of the Church, and you have a built-in prejudice towards supporting a "real" Jesus. Plus the bible itsels tell you to LIE for Jesus!!

In modern scholarship, even the best historians and Christian apologists play the historian game. They can only use what documents they have available to them. If they only have hearsay accounts then they have to play the cards that history deals them. Many historians feel compelled to use interpolation or guesses from hearsay, and yet this very dubious information sometimes ends up in encyclopedias and history books as fact.

In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the very sources they examine. A renowned Biblical scholar illustrated this clearly in an interview when asked about Biblical interpretation. David Noel Freeman (the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works) responded with:

"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

TGBaker, you're making a classic mistake of mistaking THEOLOGY for history. Not a single thing you've stated is historical. You just keep repeating theology and the STORY of the a god Jesus that was told DECADES and CENTURIES later. You even mention 2nd century historians and you forget than they have ZERO historical evidence that their stories of Jesus are anything but mythology!

You mention Paul. Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Many problems occur with the reliability of the accounts from ancient historians. Most of them did not provide sources for their claims, as they rarely included bibliographic listings, or supporting claims. They did not have access to modern scholarly techniques, and many times would include hearsay as evidence. No one today would take a modern scholar seriously who used the standards of ancient historians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that Christology comes from. Couple this with the fact that many historians believed as Christians themselves, sometimes members of the Church, and you have a built-in prejudice towards supporting a "real" Jesus. Plus the bible itsels tell you to LIE for Jesus!!

In modern scholarship, even the best historians and Christian apologists play the historian game. They can only use what documents they have available to them. If they only have hearsay accounts then they have to play the cards that history deals them. Many historians feel compelled to use interpolation or guesses from hearsay, and yet this very dubious information sometimes ends up in encyclopedias and history books as fact.

In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the very sources they examine. A renowned Biblical scholar illustrated this clearly in an interview when asked about Biblical interpretation. David Noel Freeman (the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works) responded with:

"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (Galatians 1:18-20)

What writings of the New Testament are actually from Paul? I know of no serious scholars that deny that Paul wrote Galatians. In fact you will read in any search or book that is of any reputable scholar that Galatians is authentic. Paul claims in these verses to have met James, the brother of the Lord.

The mythicist position is one in which there is a claim that no historical person exists behind the myth of the Christian Christ. A mythicist must therefore go against all of of scholarship and state that Galatians is a forgery. Or she must make another statement that is even harder to demonstrate. Paul is lying!!!

Now certainly we can show how wrong Paul is about claims such as a resurrection or the idea that there is a god that requires a human sacrifice. But these are his real beliefs. They are not intentional deception. If he is deluded about such things could he be deluded about something like visiting actual flesh and blood people? Kidding aside these are different categories of knowledge. We are left with whether Paul is telling the truth or he is lying.

If he is lying we are required to prove that Paul is taking a mythological pattern found in the Mystery Cults and attempting to create a historical Jewish figure. He would also have to be lying about persecuting previous followers of the Jesus movement. But if he was making up this account then many could have challenged him. Much of his work presupposes that the recipients know some of what he claims and what has transpired.

Let us assume that this passage is an interpolation as a few scholars have hypothesised. Then we are still confronted with Paul's claim in another passage to have spoken to James, the Brother of Jesus, Peter and John who were disciples and knew Jesus:

Galatians 2.... Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognised that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[ 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[ and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

We can see that he speaks again of a historical encounter with people who supposedly knew Jesus or were in fact related to him. Finally we have Paul stating that he opposed Peter in Antioch, an event that was apparently known or at least verifiable to the recipients of Paul's letter:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

We are left with one more possibility that Paul did meet with James who claimed to be the brother of Jesus but James made it up and the fact that he had a brother. Peter and John went along with it and perhaps much of Jerusalem.

These arguments of Paul are to a historical situation. The followers of Jesus were Jewish and had no teachings from Jesus that they were to stop following the Jewish Law. Why because Jesus was Jewish. He was a human brother of James. They thought that he was a great teacher ( as refelcted in Q) and a blameless man that would return soon at the end of the ages as Messiah and in the general resurrection.

How do we know this? Because there are two major movements from the first century that cause many more by the second century. There is the movement in Jerusalem as pointed to by Paul and headed by the original followers of Jesus. And there is Paul who opposes their understanding of the very person they followed.

The beliefs that we find Paul complaining about that James, John and Peter hold are the same claims that the Ebionites held until the early second century. This view was followed by Theodotus and much of the Roman Church authority until suppressed by the mythically oriented movements that viewed Jesus as God. We find this movement in Paul and the Gospel of John.

In Paul Jesus is not yet God he is the son of God. In the Gospel of John Jesus is viewed as a god or divine in the sense of pre-existence. These late first century beliefs became even more diverse by the second century when docetism ( Christ is God but not human ) became popular and a competition in Rome against the views as expressed by Theodotus. Gnosticism also was on the rise where Jesus only appeared to be a human but wa a Spirit. Another form of Gnosticsm saw Jesus as a human in which the God or Spirit of Christ came down into until the crucifixion. At that time Jesus was abandoned. Finally the Trinitarians showed up to try and account for both a human and God in one person. This occurred late second or early third century.

As we can see the easiest and most logical explanation for the information that we have is the typical and traditional critical historical view. There was a historical person that shows up in the source called Q in sayings. He is made Gentile by Mark. Some of the competing movements have a resolution. The Gospel of Matthew is written for the Jewish Churches while the Gospel of Luke and Acts are written for the Gentile Churches ( for example James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus ). Both allow for the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. But Matthew requires all of the Law to be followed. Jesus states that he has not come to do away with the law but to fulfil it. Not one iota of it will ever change. For Luke and Paul, Jesus complete s and replaces the law.

The Jerusalem Church produced nothing in writing because they were expecting an immediate return of Jesus. And supposedly James, John and Peter were illiterate peasants. It is after the fall of Jerusalem that any thing other than the Saying of Jesus as in Q are written about him. Mark reflects a time right after the fall of the Temple. Matthew and Luke are decades later reflecting apologetics as to why Jesus had not returned though the Temple had fallen.

As the return of Jesus was delayed and delayed he became portrayed as more and more divine with salvation occurring in believing in "Him" rather than his message. His resurrection was into a Trinitarian dogma instead of a historical event. A failed Jewish teacher who had some good ideas became a mythological God whose following has caused 2000 years of superstition and bloodshed in the name of the Prince of Peace and Christian love.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

That Galaxians or whatever you quote means NOTHING!! Don't you realize you can do the exact same thing with the Bhagvad-Gita and according to your logic many of the Hindu gods are all real too like Krishna, Rama, Arjuna, Hanuman, Ganesha, etc? Not just them but also the Shinto gods, Bahaii god, Sumerian gods, Egyptians gods, etc.

You can't just quote THEOLOGY man!!

Unless you have a quote from OUTSIDE the bible to corroborate the CLAIMS Galaxians makes it means ZILCH, ZERO, NADA!! You actually sound more like a theist than a atheist or even agnostic!

You are falling for the fact that the bible is most marketed book of all time and Jesus is the most marketed character of all time! That has NOTHING to do with him being real! I've even asked multiple clergy and they admit they can't prove Jesus is any more real than the hundreds of other gods AND goddesses out there!

I've been to church before (long ago) and all they do is TALK about god and the SUPPOSED events that occured but the can't prove JACK SQUAT and clergy admit that as well!! LOL...church has NOT changed in the past 2000 years! It's just just ALL talk and NO action! They might as well be talking about ANY god!

That Galaxians or whatever you quote means NOTHING!! Don't you realize you can do the exact same thing with the Bhagvad-Gita and according to your logic many of the Hindu gods are all real too like Krishna, Rama, Arjuna, Hanuman, Ganesha, etc? Not just them but also the Shinto gods, Bahaii god, Sumerian gods, Egyptians gods, etc.

You can't just quote THEOLOGY man!!

Unless you have a quote from OUTSIDE the bible to corroborate the CLAIMS Galaxians makes it means ZILCH, ZERO, NADA!! You actually sound more like a theist than a atheist or even agnostic!

You are falling for the fact that the bible is most marketed book of all time and Jesus is the most marketed character of all time! That has NOTHING to do with him being real! I've even asked multiple clergy and they admit they can't prove Jesus is any more real than the hundreds of other gods AND goddesses out there!

I've been to church before (long ago) and all they do is TALK about god and the SUPPOSED events that occured but the can't prove JACK SQUAT and clergy admit that as well!! LOL...church has NOT changed in the past 2000 years! It's just just ALL talk and NO action! They might as well be talking about ANY god!

Dude I have 35 years of research and Greek you don't know what you are talking about. It is not theology it is history about stupid theological beliefs don't confuse or fuse the two.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

That Galaxians or whatever you quote means NOTHING!! Don't you realize you can do the exact same thing with the Bhagvad-Gita and according to your logic many of the Hindu gods are all real too like Krishna, Rama, Arjuna, Hanuman, Ganesha, etc? Not just them but also the Shinto gods, Bahaii god, Sumerian gods, Egyptians gods, etc.

You can't just quote THEOLOGY man!!

Unless you have a quote from OUTSIDE the bible to corroborate the CLAIMS Galaxians makes it means ZILCH, ZERO, NADA!! You actually sound more like a theist than a atheist or even agnostic!

Get a grip man. TG's not quoting Paul's Galatians as proof of Paul's theology. He's quoting Paul's Galations as proof of what Paul wrote, and hence what Paul probably believed.

Paul was a real dude, not a mythological character. Paul, the real dude, wrote some stuff. That stuff includes both Paul's theology, and also some mundane stuff about where Paul went and who he talked to in real life. Or at least probably real life, because we don't have any a priori reasons to believe that Paul would lie about mundane shit like where he went and who he talked to.

One of TG's main points is that Paul talked to some Christians, and one of them was named James, and James appears to have been known as a (or the) 'brother of the Lord'.

Now, you don't actually have to believe anything about theology to acknowledge that Paul probably travelled around talking to other Christians, and that there may even have been a Christian named James who was known as a (or the) 'brother of the Lord', do you? No.

I bet there is probably some sect somewhere today who call themselves 'brothers of the Lord' or 'brothers of Jesus' or some shit like that.

Just because their theology is bogus doesn't mean they didn't believe it.

That Galaxians or whatever you quote means NOTHING!! Don't you realize you can do the exact same thing with the Bhagvad-Gita and according to your logic many of the Hindu gods are all real too like Krishna, Rama, Arjuna, Hanuman, Ganesha, etc? Not just them but also the Shinto gods, Bahaii god, Sumerian gods, Egyptians gods, etc.

You can't just quote THEOLOGY man!!

Unless you have a quote from OUTSIDE the bible to corroborate the CLAIMS Galaxians makes it means ZILCH, ZERO, NADA!! You actually sound more like a theist than a atheist or even agnostic!

Get a grip man. TG's not quoting Paul's Galatians as proof of Paul's theology. He's quoting Paul's Galations as proof of what Paul wrote, and hence what Paul probably believed.

Paul was a real dude, not a mythological character. Paul, the real dude, wrote some stuff. That stuff includes both Paul's theology, and also some mundane stuff about where Paul went and who he talked to in real life. Or at least probably real life, because we don't have any a priori reasons to believe that Paul would lie about mundane shit like where he went and who he talked to.

One of TG's main points is that Paul talked to some Christians, and one of them was named James, and James appears to have been known as a (or the) 'brother of the Lord'.

Now, you don't actually have to believe anything about theology to acknowledge that Paul probably travelled around talking to other Christians, and that there may even have been a Christian named James who was known as a (or the) 'brother of the Lord', do you? No.

I bet there is probably some sect somewhere today who call themselves 'brothers of the Lord' or 'brothers of Jesus' or some shit like that.

Just because their theology is bogus doesn't mean they didn't believe it.

Thanks Natural. We can say that only one person, Robert Price questions the authenticity of Galatians as having been written in 57 or so CE by Paul. Now he claims to have at least twice meeting a person he says was james the brother of the Lord ( Jesus , Christ) . Is he lying then we have an onus to present the facts of such or the historical established interpretation stands. We have Earl Dohetery who wishes to minimise the gramatical import but is to me a weak argument and is beetter defended by a Christian apologetist named Alixter McGrath. Also the three fellows John, James and Peter could have been con artists and lied to Paul. What evidence do we have of that? We do know that the author of the Book of Ats tries to revision the fight between Paul and these jerusalem fellows and assumes that the James is in fact the brother of Jesus. That is not that Acts is historical but that it is trying to argue against a historical fact. THis seems to indicate given that Peter hung aeround Paul but was acting Gentile then Jewish that there was a James and that the tradition from teh first and second centuries is better understood as correc.t. That would mean that James was the brother of Jesus contrary to the belief that their mother was a virgin. Also these three Jerusalem pillars did not believe in Paul's teachings. TYhey knew jesus was asimply a human being and that he died. They still thought of him as a great teacher and that he would come back from heaven as a messiah. That of course never happened and people continue to believe that he is going to return.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Now he claims to have at least twice meeting a person he says was james the brother of the Lord ( Jesus , Christ) .

Actually, it's 'Christ Jesus', isn't it? By putting it in the order "Jesus, Christ", you are begging the question, presuming what you are trying to prove, assuming he was a real person named Jesus, and then interpreting the text "Christ Jesus" as 'actually' meaning "Jesus Christ". Cart before the horse. The text is "Christ Jesus", isn't it?

Quote:

Also the three fellows John, James and Peter could have been con artists and lied to Paul. What evidence do we have of that?

Are there any mythicists who actually argue that? If not, then this constitutes a straw man fallacy.

Quote:

We do know that the author of the Book of Ats tries to revision the fight between Paul and these jerusalem fellows and assumes that the James is in fact the brother of Jesus. That is not that Acts is historical but that it is trying to argue against a historical fact.

Okay, so Acts is a forged, fictional account. Check.

Quote:

THis seems to indicate given that Peter hung aeround Paul but was acting Gentile then Jewish that there was a James and that the tradition from teh first and second centuries is better understood as correc.t.

Huh, what? The forged fictional account somehow is a good indicator of historical fact??? You need to explain that step better.

Quote:

Also these three Jerusalem pillars did not believe in Paul's teachings. TYhey knew jesus was asimply a human being and that he died.

How do you know that they knew that? Aren't you basing this on a forged, fictional, non-history book, which also had an ideological axe to grind?

Now he claims to have at least twice meeting a person he says was james the brother of the Lord ( Jesus , Christ) .

Actually, it's 'Christ Jesus', isn't it? By putting it in the order "Jesus, Christ", you are begging the question, presuming what you are trying to prove, assuming he was a real person named Jesus, and then interpreting the text "Christ Jesus" as 'actually' meaning "Jesus Christ". Cart before the horse. The text is "Christ Jesus", isn't it?

Not sure that it matters where the title is placed. The point is that for the Jerusalem Church (run by the disciples who walked with Jesus) considered "Christ" to mean "messiah" (anointed one). Paul takes the word "Christ" to mean "God".

Quote:

Also the three fellows John, James and Peter could have been con artists and lied to Paul. What evidence do we have of that?

Quote:

Are there any mythicists who actually argue that? If not, then this constitutes a straw man fallacy.

Does a possibility have to be bandied about in academic circles before it is a possibility?

Quote:

We do know that the author of the Book of Ats tries to revision the fight between Paul and these jerusalem fellows and assumes that the James is in fact the brother of Jesus. That is not that Acts is historical but that it is trying to argue against a historical fact.

Quote:

Okay, so Acts is a forged, fictional account. Check.

Forged? No. Written by a convert of Paul to make Paul come out looking like he is better than the Jerusalem disciples? Yep.

Quote:

THis seems to indicate given that Peter hung aeround Paul but was acting Gentile then Jewish that there was a James and that the tradition from teh first and second centuries is better understood as correc.t.

Quote:

Huh, what? The forged fictional account somehow is a good indicator of historical fact??? You need to explain that step better.

Acts was written by a convert of Paul. He is of course going to make his teacher look good. There is more evidence to James' existence than just Acts.

Quote:

Also these three Jerusalem pillars did not believe in Paul's teachings. TYhey knew jesus was asimply a human being and that he died.

Quote:

How do you know that they knew that? Aren't you basing this on a forged, fictional, non-history book, which also had an ideological axe to grind?

They knew that because they were observant Jews (as was Jesus). For a man (even the Messiah) to claim to be God or the son of God was blasphemy for them. I like to say that if Jesus had actually met Paul and knew what he was planning he'd have slapped the taste out of his mouth

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Now he claims to have at least twice meeting a person he says was james the brother of the Lord ( Jesus , Christ) .

Actually, it's 'Christ Jesus', isn't it? By putting it in the order "Jesus, Christ", you are begging the question, presuming what you are trying to prove, assuming he was a real person named Jesus, and then interpreting the text "Christ Jesus" as 'actually' meaning "Jesus Christ". Cart before the horse. The text is "Christ Jesus", isn't it?

Not sure that it matters where the title is placed. The point is that for the Jerusalem Church (run by the disciples who walked with Jesus) considered "Christ" to mean "messiah" (anointed one). Paul takes the word "Christ" to mean "God".

Quote:

Also the three fellows John, James and Peter could have been con artists and lied to Paul. What evidence do we have of that?

Quote:

Are there any mythicists who actually argue that? If not, then this constitutes a straw man fallacy.

Does a possibility have to be bandied about in academic circles before it is a possibility?

Quote:

We do know that the author of the Book of Ats tries to revision the fight between Paul and these jerusalem fellows and assumes that the James is in fact the brother of Jesus. That is not that Acts is historical but that it is trying to argue against a historical fact.

Quote:

Okay, so Acts is a forged, fictional account. Check.

Forged? No. Written by a convert of Paul to make Paul come out looking like he is better than the Jerusalem disciples? Yep.

Quote:

THis seems to indicate given that Peter hung aeround Paul but was acting Gentile then Jewish that there was a James and that the tradition from teh first and second centuries is better understood as correc.t.

Quote:

Huh, what? The forged fictional account somehow is a good indicator of historical fact??? You need to explain that step better.

Acts was written by a convert of Paul. He is of course going to make his teacher look good. There is more evidence to James' existence than just Acts.

Quote:

Also these three Jerusalem pillars did not believe in Paul's teachings. TYhey knew jesus was asimply a human being and that he died.

Quote:

How do you know that they knew that? Aren't you basing this on a forged, fictional, non-history book, which also had an ideological axe to grind?

They knew that because they were observant Jews (as was Jesus). For a man (even the Messiah) to claim to be God or the son of God was blasphemy for them. I like to say that if Jesus had actually met Paul and knew what he was planning he'd have slapped the taste out of his mouth

I agree with every point kool and well done.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Also the three fellows John, James and Peter could have been con artists and lied to Paul. What evidence do we have of that?

Are there any mythicists who actually argue that? If not, then this constitutes a straw man fallacy.

Does a possibility have to be bandied about in academic circles before it is a possibility?

No, but what does that have to do with TG's argument against mythicism?

TG tries to plug the mythicists into a false dilemma, pretending he has exhausted all of the possibilities, and using straw man versions of mythicist arguments which are easy to tear down (as straw men tend to be).

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We do know that the author of the Book of Ats tries to revision the fight between Paul and these jerusalem fellows and assumes that the James is in fact the brother of Jesus. That is not that Acts is historical but that it is trying to argue against a historical fact.

Okay, so Acts is a forged, fictional account. Check.

Forged? No. Written by a convert of Paul to make Paul come out looking like he is better than the Jerusalem disciples? Yep.

So, Paul didn't write Acts. Although it was claimed that he did. So, how is that not a forgery? I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

THis seems to indicate given that Peter hung aeround Paul but was acting Gentile then Jewish that there was a James and that the tradition from teh first and second centuries is better understood as correc.t.

Huh, what? The forged fictional account somehow is a good indicator of historical fact??? You need to explain that step better.

Acts was written by a convert of Paul. He is of course going to make his teacher look good. There is more evidence to James' existence than just Acts.

I'm not looking for evidence of James' existence. I'm looking for evidence of Jesus' existence. TG is claiming that James' biological sibling relationship with Jesus is evidence that Jesus existed. I'm asking TG to substantiate the claim that James really had a biological sibling named Jesus. Acts does not seem like a reliable source of evidence for such a claim.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Also these three Jerusalem pillars did not believe in Paul's teachings. TYhey knew jesus was asimply a human being and that he died.

How do you know that they knew that? Aren't you basing this on a forged, fictional, non-history book, which also had an ideological axe to grind?

They knew that because they were observant Jews (as was Jesus). For a man (even the Messiah) to claim to be God or the son of God was blasphemy for them.

How does any of that substantiate that they knew Jesus was an actual human and not just some concept imagined as a supernatural person, like so many other god conceptions?

For example, if I said to you: The fans at the comic book convention know that Superman was from Krypton, because like all observant Kryptonians, he was vulnerable to Kryptonite.

Would that convince you that Superman was actually real?

No?

I'm not surprised, actually, because saying that "Jesus was an observant Jew" does not convince me that Jesus was actually real either.

Does James ever come out and say anything like "You know, my brother Jesus was an observant Jew, and always ate kosher food even when Gentile food was available"? How about Peter or John? Do they ever say anything about how Jesus lived (as an observant Jew, for example), or what Jesus said or professed?

No? Don't you find that strange that nobody seems to know anything about Jesus' life, teachings, sayings, or anything?

You really would think, that in all those letters, that someone somewhere might have mentioned one identifiable fact about Jesus' life on Earth. Just one. Is that so much to ask?

Why must we wait for the much later, and obviously mythical, Gospels which clearly just made shit up? Why couldn't anybody who was alive when Jesus was supposedly alive tell us anything about Jesus' supposed life?

So, then can you respond to every counterpoint I just made? If you're depending on jcgadfly's post as representative of your position, I think you should re-evaluate that post, because I don't think it represents your position very well.

I think you'd do better to respond to it yourself.

However, I get the feeling that you are dealing with other stuff in your life right now, so I don't want to pressure you too hard. Take care of yourself, TG. Hope things are okay. If you want to take a break from this conversation and come back at it later, I'm cool with that.

Also the three fellows John, James and Peter could have been con artists and lied to Paul. What evidence do we have of that?

Are there any mythicists who actually argue that? If not, then this constitutes a straw man fallacy.

Does a possibility have to be bandied about in academic circles before it is a possibility?

Quote:

No, but what does that have to do with TG's argument against mythicism?

TG tries to plug the mythicists into a false dilemma, pretending he has exhausted all of the possibilities, and using straw man versions of mythicist arguments which are easy to tear down (as straw men tend to be).

Nothing. I'm disputing your claim that one or more mythicists have to argue a possibility before it can be acknowledged (which you seem to be recanting). How does adding a possibility (that the disciples were con artists [I don't hold this position, btw]) exhaust all the possibilities?

Quote:

Quote:

We do know that the author of the Book of Ats tries to revision the fight between Paul and these jerusalem fellows and assumes that the James is in fact the brother of Jesus. That is not that Acts is historical but that it is trying to argue against a historical fact.

Okay, so Acts is a forged, fictional account. Check.

Forged? No. Written by a convert of Paul to make Paul come out looking like he is better than the Jerusalem disciples? Yep.

Quote:

So, Paul didn't write Acts. Although it was claimed that he did. So, how is that not a forgery? I'm just calling a spade a spade.

No scholar I've read claims Paul wrote Acts. If I recall, the consensus is that Acts was written by the same anonymous Pauline convert that wrote Luke. Who claims that Paul wrote Acts?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

THis seems to indicate given that Peter hung aeround Paul but was acting Gentile then Jewish that there was a James and that the tradition from teh first and second centuries is better understood as correc.t.

Huh, what? The forged fictional account somehow is a good indicator of historical fact??? You need to explain that step better.

Acts was written by a convert of Paul. He is of course going to make his teacher look good. There is more evidence to James' existence than just Acts.

Quote:

I'm not looking for evidence of James' existence. I'm looking for evidence of Jesus' existence. TG is claiming that James' biological sibling relationship with Jesus is evidence that Jesus existed. I'm asking TG to substantiate the claim that James really had a biological sibling named Jesus. Acts does not seem like a reliable source of evidence for such a claim.

Which Jesus are you arguing about? Jesus the man or Jesus the Son of God (they're not the same thing)? Jesus (Yeshua) was a very common name. It's not a big stretch to put a few thousand of them in Nazareth. It's not that large of a stretch to think that a few hundred had brothers named James. Not a big stretch to think that a few of them made Messianic claims (though their movements weren't as popular. It is entirely possible that there was a teacher called Jesus who had a following that believed him to be Messiah. Jesus the Son of God is the legebd created by Paul and his converts

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Also these three Jerusalem pillars did not believe in Paul's teachings. TYhey knew jesus was asimply a human being and that he died.

How do you know that they knew that? Aren't you basing this on a forged, fictional, non-history book, which also had an ideological axe to grind?

They knew that because they were observant Jews (as was Jesus). For a man (even the Messiah) to claim to be God or the son of God was blasphemy for them.

How does any of that substantiate that they knew Jesus was an actual human and not just some concept imagined as a supernatural person, like so many other god conceptions?

For example, if I said to you: The fans at the comic book convention know that Superman was from Krypton, because like all observant Kryptonians, he was vulnerable to Kryptonite.

Would that convince you that Superman was actually real?

No?

I'm not surprised, actually, because saying that "Jesus was an observant Jew" does not convince me that Jesus was actually real either.

Does James ever come out and say anything like "You know, my brother Jesus was an observant Jew, and always ate kosher food even when Gentile food was available"? How about Peter or John? Do they ever say anything about how Jesus lived (as an observant Jew, for example), or what Jesus said or professed?

No? Don't you find that strange that nobody seems to know anything about Jesus' life, teachings, sayings, or anything?

You really would think, that in all those letters, that someone somewhere might have mentioned one identifiable fact about Jesus' life on Earth. Just one. Is that so much to ask?

Why must we wait for the much later, and obviously mythical, Gospels which clearly just made shit up? Why couldn't anybody who was alive when Jesus was supposedly alive tell us anything about Jesus' supposed life?

The Gospels weren't written to establish Jesus as anything. They were written to publicize and support Paul's new religion. I believe Paul used the entire name "Jesus Christ" as a title (Messiah the Deliverer from God) and never intended it to be a real person. I also believe, that the Gospel writers were trying to impress particular audiences so they fused Paul's idea (itself a fusion of savior myths and Judaism) with a rabbi that they liked. I don't consider Jesus a myth but a legend. And legends do have some basis in fact. What those facts are exactly I do not know at present. But I have no problem acknowledging the possibility of their existence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

No, but what does that have to do with TG's argument against mythicism?

TG tries to plug the mythicists into a false dilemma, pretending he has exhausted all of the possibilities, and using straw man versions of mythicist arguments which are easy to tear down (as straw men tend to be).

Nothing. I'm disputing your claim that one or more mythicists have to argue a possibility before it can be acknowledged (which you seem to be recanting). How does adding a possibility (that the disciples were con artists [I don't hold this position, btw]) exhaust all the possibilities?

I think you think I said something I never said.

'Adding a possibility' is beside the point. TG is attempting to refute mythicism, so bringing up a con-man hypothesis, as if that's a typical mythicist position, is a red-herring at best, or straw man at worst. Point was, is, and will always be: It is not relevant to the mythicist argument.

Quote:

No scholar I've read claims Paul wrote Acts. If I recall, the consensus is that Acts was written by the same anonymous Pauline convert that wrote Luke. Who claims that Paul wrote Acts?

I must have been thinking of something else. Or maybe I heard that from a confused fundy or something. My mistake.

Quote:

Which Jesus are you arguing about? Jesus the man or Jesus the Son of God (they're not the same thing)?

The 'Jesus' of the 'historical Jesus' hypotheses (any of them). Specifically, TG is basing his argument on a Jesus who happened to be the biological brother of the James that Paul met.

Quote:

I also believe, that the Gospel writers were trying to impress particular audiences so they fused Paul's idea (itself a fusion of savior myths and Judaism) with a rabbi that they liked.

What you believe is irrelevant. What you can show with evidence is all that matters in this discussion. What evidence do you have to show that it is implausible to believe anything other than that Jesus was based off of a rabbi that they liked?

And anyway, this wouldn't get you anywhere, because we're talking about a historical Jesus, and Paul already believed in Jesus before the Gospels.

Quote:

I don't consider Jesus a myth but a legend. And legends do have some basis in fact. What those facts are exactly I do not know at present. But I have no problem acknowledging the possibility of their existence.

Then you are not arguing TG's position but your own, which is not the topic I'm interested in. TG claimed that mythicism is implausible on the face of it, specifically that the person of James literally had a biological sibling named Jesus who Paul and the christians of the time referred to as 'the lord', such that saying James was 'the brother of the lord' is evidence that Jesus was a real person.

If that's not what you're defending, then you have no argument with me.

Natural you asked "How many mythicists made the claim (about Peter, James and John possibly being con artists)?" as though having others say it makes the possibility more possible. All he did was bring up a possibility. He never said that it was definitely the case that they conned Paul. He also never claimed it to be a typical mythicist hypothesis (if I recall correctly) so it seems like your the one building a straw army.

Paul believing in a historical Jesus is a position on which I have to disagree with you. How can Paul have a historical opinion about a person he never met? Paul claimed to have "met" a vision of Jesus on the Damascus road. Are you taking ghost stories as historical accounts? Paul had created a concept of a "savior" that he cobbled together from the pagan myths he grew up with (Yehshua meaning "Yahweh saves [or delivers])" The history of the Pharisees stands against Paul being one (despite what was written in Acts and the Epistles). Paul wanted to be a Pharisee but didn't have the intellectual chops. Paul created his own savior in the hopes that he could supplant Judaism and be hailed as a prophet.

As you said, beliefs are irrelevant. I can't show evidence for my opinion any more than you can for yours. I wasn't necessarily trying to argue - just trying to clarify where I though it was needed.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Natural you asked "How many mythicists made the claim (about Peter, James and John possibly being con artists)?" as though having others say it makes the possibility more possible. All he did was bring up a possibility. He never said that it was definitely the case that they conned Paul. He also never claimed it to be a typical mythicist hypothesis (if I recall correctly) so it seems like your the one building a straw army.

As it is utterly irrelevant to the mythicist case TG is trying to discredit, I'm letting it sink into the abyss...

Quote:

Paul believing in a historical Jesus is a position on which I have to disagree with you. How can Paul have a historical opinion about a person he never met?

What? I've never met the Dalai Lama, but I hereby profess my belief that he is a historical person. I've never met Abe Lincoln either, and I will publicly state that I believe he was a real person who lived on Earth, and not in some imaginary realm of myth.

Quote:

Paul claimed to have "met" a vision of Jesus on the Damascus road. Are you taking ghost stories as historical accounts?

WTF, man. Do you think I'm defending Jesus as a historical person??? I'm defending the plausibility of mythicism against TG's argument against it.

Natural you asked "How many mythicists made the claim (about Peter, James and John possibly being con artists)?" as though having others say it makes the possibility more possible. All he did was bring up a possibility. He never said that it was definitely the case that they conned Paul. He also never claimed it to be a typical mythicist hypothesis (if I recall correctly) so it seems like your the one building a straw army.

As it is utterly irrelevant to the mythicist case TG is trying to discredit, I'm letting it sink into the abyss...

Quote:

Paul believing in a historical Jesus is a position on which I have to disagree with you. How can Paul have a historical opinion about a person he never met?

What? I've never met the Dalai Lama, but I hereby profess my belief that he is a historical person. I've never met Abe Lincoln either, and I will publicly state that I believe he was a real person who lived on Earth, and not in some imaginary realm of myth.

Quote:

Paul claimed to have "met" a vision of Jesus on the Damascus road. Are you taking ghost stories as historical accounts?

WTF, man. Do you think I'm defending Jesus as a historical person??? I'm defending the plausibility of mythicism against TG's argument against it.

If mythicists needing to argue for a position in order to establish one is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up as a counter argument to TG? Are you getting selective memory?

I could have been more clear - my apologies. You have a historical opinion about the Dalai Lama and Lincoln because histories were written about them. If the dates for Paul's life and death are correct (and you seem to have no dispute with this) there was no history for Paul to have read. There have been no histories written about you or me - by your definition we are both myths.

You argued that Paul claimed that Jesus was historical. I have to disagree. Paul created myth - the writers of the Gospel built the myth around a person (he might have been named Jesus - who knows?) creating a legend.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

If mythicists needing to argue for a position in order to establish one is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up as a counter argument to TG? Are you getting selective memory?

Please be more specific. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I objected to one line of reasoning of TG's post because it appeared to be off-topic. Since it was off-topic, I'm not going to bother pursuing that objection. This has exactly zero to do with the plausibility of mythicism, which is what this discussion with TG was/is about.

Quote:

You have a historical opinion about the Dalai Lama and Lincoln because histories were written about them. If the dates for Paul's life and death are correct (and you seem to have no dispute with this) there was no history for Paul to have read. There have been no histories written about you or me - by your definition we are both myths.

Evidence from history =/= a 'history' was written about it.

If in 1000 years, someone finds my birth certificate, I will be a historical person. No 'history' of me is required, only some historical evidence.

I think I understand where you're coming from now. I'm not sure if I have enough understanding of your position to go on.

My apologies for butting in. If you wish to help me out on your/the mythicist position (all I usually get is "There's no evidence For Jesus so he must be a myth [I think there must be more to it than that]) feel free to help me out.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin